Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23STCV24072, Date: 2024-10-18 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 23STCV24072    Hearing Date: October 18, 2024    Dept: 34

Meltzer v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al. (23STCV24072)

Plaintiff Howard Meltzer’s Motion to Deem the Truth of All Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admission Set One, Admitted is DENIED as moot. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $461.65. Counsel for Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC must pay said monetary sanctions to Plaintiff within 20 days of the Court’s order.

Background   

Plaintiff Howard Meltzer (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

In 2022, Plaintiff purchased a used 2019 Mercedes-Benz A220W from Mercedes-Benz of Beverly Hills. The vehicle has been out of service at Mercedes-Benz of Beverly Hills for a cumulative of more than 30 days. Plaintiff has contacted Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC regarding the defects of the vehicle, but Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC has willfully refused to repurchase the vehicle, despite the warranties that accompanied the sale of the vehicle to Plaintiff.

On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative complaint against Defendants Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Manufacturer”), Mercedes-Benz of Beverly Hills (“Dealer”), and Does 1 through 10, asserting causes of action for:

1.     Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty

2.     Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty

3.     Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2

4.     Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.22 – Tanner Consumer Protection Act.

On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff moved to deem the truth of all matters specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admission Set One, admitted against Manufacturer. On August 5, 2024, Manufacturer opposed the motion. Plaintiff did not reply.

A Final Status Conference is set for December 20, 2024, and a jury trial is set for January 6, 2025.

Legal Standard

When a party fails to serve a timely response to a request for admission, the party propounding the request for admission may move for an order to deem the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section  2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction… on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Discussion

Plaintiff contends to have served Requests for Admissions, Set One, on Manufacturer on November 9, 2023. (Yashar Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff contends to have not received any responses. (Yashar Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)

In opposition, Manufacturer contends the requests were not properly served because Plaintiff’s counsel only mailed them to one junior attorney from defense counsel’s firm, which was not received. (Hom Decl., ¶ 3.) Manufacturer also contends the separate email sent by Plaintiff’s counsel to the same junior attorney was an improper address because the parties had not agreed upon it. (Hom Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) Manufacturer further indicates having attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff to avoid this motion, but to no avail. (Hom Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. A.) Manufacturer then argues that the motion is moot because Manufacturer has served responses to the subject discovery requests. (Hom Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. B.)

The court finds that Plaintiff’s motion is moot in light of Manufacturer’s responses having been recently served before the hearing on this motion. (Hom Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. B; Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as moot.

With respect to monetary sanctions, the Court notes that they are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) That being said, the court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s methods of effecting service in this matter and failure to meet and confer with opposing counsel problematic. The court will therefore award Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $461.65, comprised of one hour of work, multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate of $400.00, plus the $61.65 filing fee. Said monetary sanctions must be paid by counsel for Manufacturer within 20 days of the court’s order.